AlexL

Members
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AlexL


  1. To understand what the actual science means requires learning the science, including its mathematics, not just FAQs.

    [...] no science can reify infinities and nothings...

    Sure, but my point was that, for those to whom the science itself is not accessible, looking up Wiki or an FAQ could help understand what a theory is (and is not!) about, provide some answers and clear some misconceptions and misunderstandings.

    Infinities/singularities - the genuine ones - in the equations of a physical theory always signal the breakdown of its validity in the vicinity of such points and the scientist are very well aware of this.


  2. In my view, before declaring something as being absurd, in a field which is so far from our everyday experience, so unintuitive, one should seek answers from a good scientist working in the field, or at least some specialized FAQ's.

    There are many Big Bang FAQ's, some of which are maintained by professionals working in the field of General Relativity and Cosmology. This and this (?) are but two examples; they address some of the questions asked here.


  3. Yes it would have begun from a little dense seed that exploded outward, but that is a something with no possible meaning.

    Well, I was not arguing about the B-B theory being correct or having meaning, but about it being about creation from nothing.

    So that I am now confused: do you still maintain that the B-B theory assumes a zero initial mass/energy?

    Paul's Here: That is not the way the theory is described here.

    In a situation like this, where one is condemned to rely on others for information, the source' credentials are essential. This site happen to have very bad ones, with a vested interest in a specific point of view: it is an explicitly religious site - look up "About Us". I suppose it is also not peer reviewed... :)

    Besides, the same article, second paragraph, states:

    Our universe is thought to have begun as an … infinitely dense something

    [There is, however, no contradiction with your quote, because the latter is about what was before the Big Bang, and that is not part of the B-B theory proper.]


  4. Many years ago someone started transcribing and selling individual lectures but it was apparently stopped as a copyright violation. ...

    They were transcribed and edited by Linda Reardan and published by George Reisman. The publication started in 1994 and was stopped after the fifth lecture (2002). I don't think there is a copyright problem, at least not with the five published lectures, because:

    - in his 1994 Preface to the first lecture, L. Peikoff writes "I am very pleased that my History of Philosophy lectures are being edited by Linda Reardan for publication by Professor George Reisman." and because

    - the five lectures are still available on the G. Reisman's page: http://www.capitalism.net/Peikoff.htm

    If the publication stopped somehow because of the Reisman-ARI split, I do not know; maybe L. Reardan somehow lost interest because of the split - I just speculate.

    Sasha


  5. Rand is a perennial presence on Indian bestseller lists and regularly name-checked on the "favourite author" list of influential Indians -- from company CEOs to Bollywood stars. ...The socio-cultural milieu in India was very conformist, and suddenly this voice emerges that challenges the established order, that celebrates individuality. It was very inspirational ... Indian society, despite economic growth, despite globalisation remains very conservative. So I think her work still resonates here, it provides a space for people to question the traditional order and be an individual...

    http://www.repost.us...6f50badf9b26346

    http://jewishworldre...rand_india.php3

    Sasha


  6. A recent NYT opinion piece: Capitalists and Other Psychopaths - particularly vicious, and stupid.

    There are ethical corporations, yes, and ethical businesspeople, but ethics in capitalism is purely optional, purely extrinsic. To expect morality in the market is to commit a category error. Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.) Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it’s every man for himself.

    There’s been a lot of talk lately about “job creators,” a phrase begotten by Frank Luntz, the right-wing propaganda guru, on the ghost of Ayn Rand. The rich deserve our gratitude as well as everything they have, in other words, and all the rest is envy.

    First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs — the excess productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes to corporate profits. It’s neither party’s goal to benefit the other, but that’s what happens nonetheless.

    ...

    Sasha


  7. It may have occurred to you that if we say that a elementary wave goes out from my eye and a photon follows it back, then how can we explain our ability to see stars that emitted their light one million years ago?

    Here is my best guess.

    We will say that this (the rod) is an elementary wave that has been here forever, since the beginning of time, flowing in this direction (toward the sky) at the speed of light.

    One million years ago, a star passes through this EW and emits a photon going in this direction (toward the man) at the speed of light.

    One million years later, I go outside and look at the night sky and, as I position my head, this EW that has been here forever comes into the back of my skull and emerges through the subatomic particles in my rods and cones, carrying downstream information about my retina and, in the last minute, the photon comes this direction into my eye and I see the star.

    In any case, his explanation for how we can see light that was emitted before we existed is different than the one given by Dr. Little in his original descriptions of TEW. Dr. Little's is much better.

    I couldn't find the standard TEW explanation, but DR- Boyd's explanation is apparently at variance with standard TEW, according to which

    - first, an Elementary Wave passes through the receiver and carries to the photon emitter the information about its characteristics.

    - then the photon emission with necessary characteristics is stimulated at the source and then guided / transported back to the destination by the Elementary Wave

    In standard TEW, this process will have to take the time necessary for the EW travel from the eye to the star and the photon to travel back to the eye, which means the man will receive the right photon from the star millions years later.

    Dr. Boyd's explanation circumvents partly this obvious problem by stating that the EW gets and carries the eye's characteristics towards the already emitted incoming photon "in the last moment".

    Therefore, it is my understanding that :

    - the standard TEW should have problems explaining our ability to see stars that emitted their light a long time ago (I do not know where does Dr. Little explain this ability of ours)

    - and that Dr. Boyd advances an unorthodox explanation, still based on elementary waves and almost certainly approved by Dr. Little.

    Any ideas?

    Sasha


  8. I understood the joke, that's why I dropped it from the transcript, so lets forget about it.

    In any case, his explanation for how we can see light that was emitted before we existed is different than the one given by Dr. Little in his original descriptions of TEW. Dr. Little's is much better.

    Dr. Boyd's explanation is short and clear. Is it essentially correct, in your view?

    As I understood it, Dr. Little endorses Dr. Boyd expertize in TEW, and this means, I guess, that Dr. Boyd would not publish an unapproved explanation.

    Alex


  9. He's commenting on something he joked about during the video. Watch it again and you'll find it.

    OK, I got it, I understood he meant that it doesn't hurt joking, that is that his explanation was only a joke.

    In fact, he really meant it. I'll have to think about it, but meanwhile here is the transcript, for reference:

    It may have occurred to you that if we say that a elementary wave goes out from my eye and a photon follows it back, then how can we explain our ability to see stars that emitted their light one million years ago?

    Here is my best guess.

    We will say that this (the rod) is an elementary wave that has been here forever, since the beginning of time, flowing in this direction (toward the sky) at the speed of light.

    One million years ago, a star passes through this EW and emits a photon going in this direction (toward the man) at the speed of light.

    One million years later, I go outside and look at the night sky and, as I position my head, this EW that has been here forever comes into the back of my skull ... and emerges through the subatomic particles in my rods and cones, carrying downstream information about my retina and, in the last minute, the photon comes this direction into my eye and I see the star.


  10. On the new Lewis Little http://elwave.org/ site, a Dr. Jeffrey H. Boyd, MD, is introduced and described with these words: "the only other TEW expert on earth. Little and Boyd have been in conversation, bouncing ideas off each other, for more than half a century."

    On YouTube he appears with a video

    , titled "How do we see stars?".

    At the end, in the last few seconds, there is a rather puzzling comment, apparently also by Jeffrey Boyd. I don't know what to think of it.

    Alex


  11. ... how do you define "race?"

    I remember having heard this definition: individuals are of the same race if they can interbreed.

    Hmm... the formulation must be adjusted for the same-sex problem, and even so, it might be false.

    Sasha