RM> KK> confirmed.  So it isn't just mathematics.  If you need details,
RM> KK> you'll have to ask someone like the moderator of Astronomy.  But
RM> KK> just as Newtonian mechanics only work within a limited range, so
RM> KK> it may likely be with relativity.
RM>I already have the details, though.  Perhaps you could look for the back
RM>issue that has the details?
Back issue?  I've forgotten what this was about.  Oh, wait!
Was that the one about plasma cosmology?  Sky & Telescope Feb. 1992.
RM> KK> RM>Do not forget the failing of relativity in predicting the
RM> KK> orbits of RM>super-massive binary stars (eg. Di-Herculis).  I
RM> KK> forget the astronomer's RM>name, but this guy spent nearly his
RM> KK> entire career trying to solve the RM>problem and save relativity
RM> KK> at such massive scales.  Now, if relativity RM>fails with
RM> KK> Di-Herculis which is very much less massive then a Big Bang
RM> KK> RM>singularity, relativity is quite unreliable at the BB
RM> KK> singularity.
RM> KK> It's important to recall that relativity is an amazingly reliable
RM> KK> description of ordinary matter outside the realm of singularities.
RM>Except for supermassive binaries!  Sorry, it just looked like I had to
RM>point this out again.  :)
I don't know exactly what supermassive binaries are, but it sounds like
the objects involved have supermassive gravity fields, which makes them
somewhat similar to singularities.  That was the point.
The other point is that to say that Newton's mechanics break down
at very high velocities does not invalidate it within its limits.
Relativity probably also has limits to what it can describe.
RM> KK> RM>Remember that any BB cosmology totally fails to make ANY sense
RM> KK> at the RM>singularity, because all laws of physics do not apply.
RM> KK> But you can work your way backward until ordinary matter is no
RM> KK> longer there.
RM>Yes you can work your way back and by "ignoring" certain processes you can
RM>get to a BB idea.
That's beyond what I know about it.  You would be better off arguing
the point with Arnold Gill over on Astronomy.
RM> KK> Possible.  One of the strengths of GR is that it predicts that it
RM> KK> will fail sufficiently close to a singularity.
RM> KK> ---------
RM> KK> It is easy to create doubt about relativity by pointing out that
RM> KK> it fails around singularities, but this leaves out the apparent
RM> KK> fact that relativity itself _predicts_ that it will fail around
RM> KK> singularities. If those predictions are borne out, they actually
RM> KK> support relativity rather than bringing doubt upon it.
RM>Stop ignoring the fact that GR fails to predict the orbits of
RM>supermassive binary star systems, Keith.  Supermassive binary stars are
RM>FAAAAAR from "singularities", yes - I grant that GR predicts it's failure
RM>at the singularity, but this does not address the real problem with GR
RM>failing to predict the orbits of supermassive binaries (which are
RM>NON-singularities).
Again, I was assuming that 'supermassive' means really large gravity
fields, which might make them have effects somewhat like singularities.
RM> KK> In that sense, your argument against relativity strongly resembles
RM> KK> certain creationist arguments in that it presents a verifiable
RM> KK> fact that is only half the story.
RM>How can hammering at an idea creationists use as support for their
RM>creation idea be construed as being creationist?  I have stated before
RM>that I am not a creationist and I will again - I AM NOT A CREATIONIST...
RM>and any further accusations of this is completely unfounded.  This
RM>argument of your's fails.  ;)
Sorry, I had you mixed up with someone else.
RM> RM>> As I mentioned
RM> KK> RM>to others here before, they are working from an unproven
RM> KK> assumption that RM>there was a BB singularity.
RM> KK> And at the moment that assumption has more empirical support than
RM> KK> any of the other assumptions, such as divine creation.
RM>Which I do not believe in anyway.  But, really, you can't keep ignoring
RM>other cosmologies in a debate like this.
I will have to leave it to people who actually understand physics.
Alfven, Lerner, and you have certainly made the point that the BB
has become not merely a cosmological model but also a paradigm.
That not only causes people who should know better to not think
too hard about what's holding it up, but also makes it vaguely
topical here!  
One problem with the present discussion is that neither of us seems
to have access to the physics community's critique of the plasma
cosmology.  1992 was 6 years ago, and that's a long time in physics.
All I know about it is from various offhand comments that the
plasma cosmology contains a falsifiable that may have been
falsified, and that the BB model(s) is till the one that fits
most of the data.
RM> RM>> There is no way to PROVE that there ever was
RM> KK> RM>such a singularity.
RM> KK> Science leaves 'proof' to whiskey and mathematics.
RM>Show me that gravity is unproven.
Gravity is a fact.  Yet even today there is no really good theory
of gravity.  My point related to scientific models/descriptions,
such as hypotheses and theories.  You can 'prove' a theorem in
geometry because geometry is a self-consistent set of abstractions
that do not relate to the physical world.  But although you can
produce a mountain of empirical support for a scientific theory,
you can never 'prove' it to be 'true,' because our knowledge of
messy reality is never complete.
RM> KK> The reason
RM> KK> scientific theories are never said to be 'proven' is that the
RM> KK> dataset is never complete.  In science you cannot say "All crows
RM> KK> are black," because somewhere there might be white crows you don't
RM> KK> know about.  But you can say, "All crows known to me at this time
RM> KK> are black."  And if someone discovers white crows in the wilds of
RM> KK> eastern India, notice how this demolishes the first assertion, but
RM> KK> not the second. The second assertion still describes the vast
RM> KK> majority of the dataset.
RM>Okay, I'll accept this counter argument.
RM> KK> So although you can't 'prove' the existence of the original
RM> KK> singularity, if observations keep supporting its existence, then
RM> KK> you can eventually build a very strong case for it.  For example,
RM> KK> a BB model predicted the existence of the microwave background
RM> KK> radiation before it was observed -- a crucial test of any
RM> KK> scientific theory.  But some early BB model also presdicted that
RM> KK> the large-scale structure of the universe would be smooth and
RM> KK> even, and in fact that large-scale structure is foamy and stringy.
RM> KK>  In science you don't start with Revealed Truth that must be true
RM> KK> no matter what the facts.  Rather, there is an interplay between
RM> KK> explanation and observation.
RM>Right, and ANY observation should not be ignored.  It doesn't matter if
>>> Continued to next message
 * SLMR 2.1a * .        Brevity is the sole of wit. -- Wm. Tagspeare
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------