|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3859 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the universe have total net energy of zero? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1446 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Nice! That's what I've been trying to say, to no avail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Pretty much sums up Designtheorist, to a tee.
Full marks and welcome to EvC.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Pretty much sums up Designtheorist, to a tee. I agree. I wonder what/where/how DT thinks he differs... What do you think? Psychoanalyst powers activate!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Were I to use my powers for evil I would not be allowed back into the Avenger's mansion. I'd have to go hang with bloody Ant-Man
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh, just use them for fun then
But don't get yourself kicked outta the mansions, its prolly cozy in there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
If I was pushed I would say he is patriarchal and maybe running his own business (he is his own boss). If he has kids he mainly has girls.
He has a study which no one else really goes into. The dominant colour of his airy house is beach. His car is old but lovingly maintained: in fact, I'm getting engineer vibes, but maybe more architectural, perhaps an artist? Not a grease monkey. He also knows (or has known) somebody called Arthur, David or James. Christian is in there somewhere, too. I'm guessing his name is Tom or Jon. My powers grow weak....I must rest.... Edited by Larni, : Spellink Edited by Larni, : FormattingThe above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Interesting enough, but I was wondering how DT might think hisself differs from the customer in the parable...
I suppose he thinks that he does "understand carburetors", or that he is not misunderstanding that "the fuel and air mixing" thingy is simply a carburetor...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1446 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
My guess is that if he responds to the parable, he will focus on how the analogy breaks down, not with DT and the customer, but with the auto mechanic and cosmologists. Auto mechanics actually do know what they're talking about; cosmologists don't. There are no controversies about how a carburetor works; there are controversies about how the universe works. We won't hear a peep out of him about the actual point to the post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
My guess is that if he responds to the parable, he will focus on how the analogy breaks down, not with DT and the customer, but with the auto mechanic and cosmologists. Except that DT claims to understand what cosmologists are saying and that he can tell that what they are saying is wrong. What's clear to me, however, is that DT cannot know whether cosmologists are wrong because he doesn't understand their work. It might actually be possible to show that General Relativity is wrong using ordinary arithmetic. For example, I might be able to convince the mechanic that he cannot tune my engine to reach some target energy efficiency by comparing the gasoline engine to an ideal Carnot cycle. Such an argument would require very little knowledge of throttle valves or other internal combustion engine parts. But so far DT has not managed to articulate such an argument. Hopefully the last bit of physics that was presented has him thinking a bit. After all, it is about the physics, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: But so far DT has not managed to articulate such an argument. Hopefully the last bit of physics that was presented has him thinking a bit. After all, it is about the physics, right? I don't think it's about the physics for DT, but about the opinions of physicists. About views he doesn't like he'll say something like this:
designtheorist writes: I happen to be a big fan of Feynman, but that does not mean I think he is infallible. Feynmann isn't infallible, therefore DT feels justified in relegating the view to suspect status. And about a view he likes he might say:
I particularly like this comment from the paper... These are accompanied by comments about physics that seem superficial but unchallengeable to unknowledgeable people like myself, and incredibly wrongheaded to informed people like Cavediver and NoNukes. I cannot myself tell if DT's views are backed by knowledge and evidence, hopefully mostly from a lack of understanding that could be remedied by the investment of time I do not have. I would have liked to have seen an explanation about what DesignTheorist meant in his response to Cavediver in Message 161, and if it's wrong why it's wrong, but Cavediver hasn't responded yet. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Are you sure you meant message 161?
That message contains questions based on designtheorist failure to understand a very simple thought experiment. Others have already handled the question as far as it can or should be handled. This isn't something I'd want the busy cavediver to bother with.
I don't think it's about the physics for DT. Well, it ought to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
My guess is that if he responds to the parable, he will focus on how the analogy breaks down, Dontcha hate that!
not with DT and the customer, but with the auto mechanic and cosmologists. Auto mechanics actually do know what they're talking about; cosmologists don't. There are no controversies about how a carburetor works; there are controversies about how the universe works. I hadn't thought of that one. In order to maintain the analogous nature, you'd have to assume that either there really isn't a controvery in cosmology, or that there is a controversy in carburetors. Either way, the point of the analogy isn't lost.
We won't hear a peep out of him about the actual point to the post. What a shame...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3859 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
One day a man pushed his car into a repair shop because it would not start. He watched the mechanic at work on his car, interested to see him dismantling pieces of it and examining them in some detail.
After a time, the mechanic came to the man and said that he was afraid that the throttle valve in the carburetor had cracked, and that he would need to order some new parts to fix his car. Knowing his rights under the law, the man asked if to see the broken parts. The following conversation ensued: "May I see the carburetor's broken throttle valve?""Why would you want to see that? You won't know what your looking at." "I will if you explain it to me." "You still won't understand it. I'm a trained mechanic. Trust me." "I know my rights under California law. I wish to see the parts." "Other people don't ask to see the parts." "I'm not other people. Please show me where it is broken." "I can't." "You are right that you can't. My car doesn't have a carburetor. It has fuel injection." "If you knew that, why did you ask to see the parts?" "I wanted to know how far you would take this farce and if you were dishonest enough to show me a carburetor off another car. Now put the car back in the condition it was in when I brought it or I will sue." As the car was being put back together, the man did some research and found a reputable repair shop down the street. He pushed his car there and asked them to take a look. Within a few short minutes, the mechanic found the problem. The coil wire had become detached. He pressed the coil wire back in place and the man drove down the street with a smile on his face. P.S. I left off the bit about the dishonest mechanic being surrounded by dark energy. It seemed a bit over the top.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm missing the bit in your allegory which corresponds to you knowing jack shit and being wrong about everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3739 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Yeah, The Parable of the Dishonest Mechanic.
Anyway - back to vimesey's Parable of the Honest Mechanic...Did you understand it? Did you learn anything from it? If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024