Salutatio Keith!
27-Feb-98, Keith Knapp wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Time and Again
 KK>> Relativity showed that space and time are not absolutes existing
 KK>> independently of matter; rather, space and time are properties of
 KK>> matter.
 KK> RM>Is relativity (mathematics) all that there is for support in
 KK> this?
 KK> If you know more than I do about supermassive binaries, then you
 KK> can probably answer this better than I can.  Most of the
 KK> implications of relativity have been carefully tested and so far
 KK> confirmed.  So it isn't just mathematics.  If you need details,
 KK> you'll have to ask someone like the moderator of Astronomy.  But
 KK> just as Newtonian mechanics only work within a limited range, so
 KK> it may likely be with relativity.
I already have the details, though.  Perhaps you could look for the back
issue that has the details?
 KK> RM>Do not forget the failing of relativity in predicting the
 KK> orbits of RM>super-massive binary stars (eg. Di-Herculis).  I
 KK> forget the astronomer's RM>name, but this guy spent nearly his
 KK> entire career trying to solve the RM>problem and save relativity
 KK> at such massive scales.  Now, if relativity RM>fails with
 KK> Di-Herculis which is very much less massive then a Big Bang
 KK> RM>singularity, relativity is quite unreliable at the BB
 KK> singularity.
 KK> It's important to recall that relativity is an amazingly reliable
 KK> description of ordinary matter outside the realm of singularities.
Except for supermassive binaries!  Sorry, it just looked like I had to
point this out again.  :)
 KK> RM>Remember that any BB cosmology totally fails to make ANY sense
 KK> at the RM>singularity, because all laws of physics do not apply.
 KK> But you can work your way backward until ordinary matter is no
 KK> longer there.
Yes you can work your way back and by "ignoring" certain processes you can
get to a BB idea.
 KK> Allow me to toss in a comment by James Harrison from the Science
 KK> echo about general realtivity (GR):
 KK> --------Date: 02-16-98 (22:41)             Number: 2128 From:
 KK> JAMES HARRISON               Refer#: NONE To: DAVE HAZELMAN
 KK>          Recvd: NO Subj: white holes                    Conf:
 KK> (640) ūSCIENCE
 KK> [...]
 DH>> Black holes might be nature's ultimate recycling center.
 KK> Possible.  One of the strengths of GR is that it predicts that it
 KK> will fail sufficiently close to a singularity.
 KK> ---------
 KK> It is easy to create doubt about relativity by pointing out that
 KK> it fails around singularities, but this leaves out the apparent
 KK> fact that relativity itself _predicts_ that it will fail around
 KK> singularities. If those predictions are borne out, they actually
 KK> support relativity rather than bringing doubt upon it.
Stop ignoring the fact that GR fails to predict the orbits of
supermassive binary star systems, Keith.  Supermassive binary stars are
FAAAAAR from "singularities", yes - I grant that GR predicts it's failure
at the singularity, but this does not address the real problem with GR
failing to predict the orbits of supermassive binaries (which are
NON-singularities).
 KK> In that sense, your argument against relativity strongly resembles
 KK> certain creationist arguments in that it presents a verifiable
 KK> fact that is only half the story.
How can hammering at an idea creationists use as support for their
creation idea be construed as being creationist?  I have stated before
that I am not a creationist and I will again - I AM NOT A CREATIONIST...
and any further accusations of this is completely unfounded.  This
argument of your's fails.  ;)
 RM>> As I mentioned
 KK> RM>to others here before, they are working from an unproven
 KK> assumption that RM>there was a BB singularity.
 KK> And at the moment that assumption has more empirical support than
 KK> any of the other assumptions, such as divine creation.
Which I do not believe in anyway.  But, really, you can't keep ignoring
other cosmologies in a debate like this.
 RM>> There is no way to PROVE that there ever was
 KK> RM>such a singularity.
 KK> Science leaves 'proof' to whiskey and mathematics.  
     
Show me that gravity is unproven.
 KK> The reason
 KK> scientific theories are never said to be 'proven' is that the
 KK> dataset is never complete.  In science you cannot say "All crows
 KK> are black," because somewhere there might be white crows you don't
 KK> know about.  But you can say, "All crows known to me at this time
 KK> are black."  And if someone discovers white crows in the wilds of
 KK> eastern India, notice how this demolishes the first assertion, but
 KK> not the second. The second assertion still describes the vast
 KK> majority of the dataset.    
 
Okay, I'll accept this counter argument.
 KK> So although you can't 'prove' the existence of the original
 KK> singularity, if observations keep supporting its existence, then
 KK> you can eventually build a very strong case for it.  For example,
 KK> a BB model predicted the existence of the microwave background
 KK> radiation before it was observed -- a crucial test of any
 KK> scientific theory.  But some early BB model also presdicted that
 KK> the large-scale structure of the universe would be smooth and
 KK> even, and in fact that large-scale structure is foamy and stringy.
 KK>  In science you don't start with Revealed Truth that must be true
 KK> no matter what the facts.  Rather, there is an interplay between
 KK> explanation and observation.       
 
Right, and ANY observation should not be ignored.  It doesn't matter if 
it is considered by some to be unimportant, to other's they can be shown
to be VERY important.
 KK> RM>Besides, you did not answer the question, "What was the cosmic
 KK> singularity RM>inside of?".  ;)
 KK> If space and time are properties of matter as we know it, then
 KK> when matter as we know it didn't yet exist, there was no 'inside
 KK> of.'            
 
Ahh huh!  The BB cop-out, dead-end, argument.  Theoretically, no sense
can be made at singularity, so how can THAT mega-assumption be taken 
seriously.  It sounds like creationist non-sense to me.
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------