Hi!
This is my 1st post here. So, please, please cut me some slack.
I'm not a full-time science guy, but the longer I live, the more I wish I had been. Nonetheless, I have some questions & I'm hoping this is the place for answers. If my questions seem moronic, consider this my apology in advance.
My understanding, in simple terms, is that the universe is getting bigger, faster. I'm sorta comprehending (not completely) the 'dark energy' concept, but that seems to be a fancy term for "we don't know, this is our best guess".
I think of the universe as a balloon. Tbe 'big bang' was a sudden infusion of energy that made the balloon expand. Based on what I know, I would expect that energy to slowly dissipate, and, as such, expansion to decelarate. Apparently, that isn't happening.
Why isn't the universe slowing down? Is the initial expansion still occurring? That seems unlikely to me, but I can't explain it.
Hoyle's 'big crunch' seems all the more unlikely (but I like his panspermia idea), but why universal acceleration?
Am I misunderstanding the issues? Is there an obvious answer here?
Thanks for any help you can give.
Until about 15 years ago astronomers assumed that the expansion would be slowing down. However two different groups analyzing supernova data discovered that it is speeding up. Einstein's general relativity allows it and dark energy has been proposed as an explanation. However there are a lot of open questions on the subject, so no one can say definitely what is going on.
QUOTE (mathman+May 15 2012, 08:50 PM)
Until about 15 years ago astronomers assumed that the expansion would be slowing down. However two different groups analyzing supernova data discovered that it is speeding up. Einstein's general relativity allows it and dark energy has been proposed as an explanation. However there are a lot of open questions on the subject, so no one can say definitely what is going on.
Thank you for your response.
My understanding of said response is such:
1) To your knowledge, there is no definitive answer to my questions;
2) my questions are not scientifically ridiculous (no one likes feeling dumb, me included); and,
3) universal expansion is an open-ended question (at least, to us).
Again, thanks for responding. And for not making me feel stupid on a science board.
The universal acceleration thing puzzles me. Push v. Pull seems the obvious question. Everything I know (granted, that's limited) is in the 'push' camp. But that doesn't explain the observed facts. Do you know of anything supporting the 'pull' idea?
Thank you for your response.
My understanding of said response is such:
1) To your knowledge, there is no definitive answer to my questions;
2) my questions are not scientifically ridiculous (no one likes feeling dumb, me included); and,
3) universal expansion is an open-ended question (at least, to us).
Again, thanks for responding. And for not making me feel stupid on a science board.
The universal acceleration thing puzzles me. Push v. Pull seems the obvious question. Everything I know (granted, that's limited) is in the 'push' camp. But that doesn't explain the observed facts. Do you know of anything supporting the 'pull' idea?
QUOTE (reheysunshine+May 16 2012, 03:04 AM)
Thank you for your response.
My understanding of said response is such:
1) To your knowledge, there is no definitive answer to my questions;
2) my questions are not scientifically ridiculous (no one likes feeling dumb, me included); and,
3) universal expansion is an open-ended question (at least, to us).
Again, thanks for responding. And for not making me feel stupid on a science board.
The universal acceleration thing puzzles me. Push v. Pull seems the obvious question. Everything I know (granted, that's limited) is in the 'push' camp. But that doesn't explain the observed facts. Do you know of anything supporting the 'pull' idea?
The observations have led to the conclusion that the expansion is accelerating. The concept of dark energy is the current explanation, but it is far from being settled, although there is no other viable theory around for now.
My understanding of said response is such:
1) To your knowledge, there is no definitive answer to my questions;
2) my questions are not scientifically ridiculous (no one likes feeling dumb, me included); and,
3) universal expansion is an open-ended question (at least, to us).
Again, thanks for responding. And for not making me feel stupid on a science board.
The universal acceleration thing puzzles me. Push v. Pull seems the obvious question. Everything I know (granted, that's limited) is in the 'push' camp. But that doesn't explain the observed facts. Do you know of anything supporting the 'pull' idea?
The observations have led to the conclusion that the expansion is accelerating. The concept of dark energy is the current explanation, but it is far from being settled, although there is no other viable theory around for now.
I reread it thrice. That's a great answer. Thank you.
Nonetheless, what do you think explains the acceleration?
Fathom a guess?
Nonetheless, what do you think explains the acceleration?
Fathom a guess?
QUOTE (mathman+May 16 2012, 09:17 PM)
The observations have led to the conclusion that the expansion is accelerating. The concept of dark energy is the current explanation, but it is far from being settled, although there is no other viable theory around for now.
The WMAP results establish limits for dark energy, cold dark matter, etc. The cosmological constant fits best for dark energy. Give it up for Albert E. Even what he thought was a blunder turns out to be important natural phenomena. The WMAP literature is a must read for cosmology geeks.
The WMAP results establish limits for dark energy, cold dark matter, etc. The cosmological constant fits best for dark energy. Give it up for Albert E. Even what he thought was a blunder turns out to be important natural phenomena. The WMAP literature is a must read for cosmology geeks.
QUOTE (brucep+May 18 2012, 06:38 AM)
The WMAP results establish limits for dark energy, cold dark matter, etc. The cosmological constant fits best for dark energy. Give it up for Albert E. Even what he thought was a blunder turns out to be important natural phenomena. The WMAP literature is a must read for cosmology geeks.
"The WMAP results establish limits for dark energy, cold dark matter, etc. The cosmological constant fits best for dark energy. Give it up for Albert E. Even what he thought was a blunder turns out to be important natural phenomena. The WMAP literature is a must read for cosmology geeks."
I'm now reading "WMAP" stuff. I didn't know about this before. Thank you for the hint.
My initial thoughts are that "WMAP" is mostly about the microwave background, and the resulting measurements, with extensions of such.
Based on that, I don't see why this study explains the "universe is getting bigger, faster" thing.
You obviously know this research. In simple terms, how does it explain universal acceleration?
What idea am I missing here?
"The WMAP results establish limits for dark energy, cold dark matter, etc. The cosmological constant fits best for dark energy. Give it up for Albert E. Even what he thought was a blunder turns out to be important natural phenomena. The WMAP literature is a must read for cosmology geeks."
I'm now reading "WMAP" stuff. I didn't know about this before. Thank you for the hint.
My initial thoughts are that "WMAP" is mostly about the microwave background, and the resulting measurements, with extensions of such.
Based on that, I don't see why this study explains the "universe is getting bigger, faster" thing.
You obviously know this research. In simple terms, how does it explain universal acceleration?
What idea am I missing here?
QUOTE (reheysunshine+May 24 2012, 04:45 AM)
"The WMAP results establish limits for dark energy, cold dark matter, etc. The cosmological constant fits best for dark energy. Give it up for Albert E. Even what he thought was a blunder turns out to be important natural phenomena. The WMAP literature is a must read for cosmology geeks."
I'm now reading "WMAP" stuff. I didn't know about this before. Thank you for the hint.
My initial thoughts are that "WMAP" is mostly about the microwave background, and the resulting measurements, with extensions of such.
Based on that, I don't see why this study explains the "universe is getting bigger, faster" thing.
You obviously know this research. In simple terms, how does it explain universal acceleration?
What idea am I missing here?
This is an article from Adam Riess and Michael Turner
The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....ows-then-speeds
Essentially, the cause of the 'accelerating expansion' is the same thing that caused inflation at the beginning of our universe. Much weaker thankfully. Alan Guth applied the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, a cosmological solution to the Einstein Field Equations, to quantum field theory. IE to a 'soliton' in a quantum scalar field. Then set the cosmological constant component [pressure term of the metric] to dominate making gravity repulsive. I'll let him tell you about it. You've already read about some of the theoretical predictions for inflation and the results of the WMAP analysis of the CMBR anisotropy. The results of WMAP provide empirical evidence for Guth's model. Inflation brought cosmology to a testable science.
Alan Guth on Eternal Inflation Theory
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/index-frame.html
Eternal inflation and its implications, Alan Guth
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
This is pretty cool. Maybe look at it first. Guth has a conversation with a room full of string theorists. Good power point on Eternal Inflation.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/
The prediction for Eternal Inflation is mind boggling but a consequence of the theory. This next one is really mind boggling. A way to possibly test the Eternal part.
First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995
Lots of stuff. IMO inflation and the empirical analysis of the CMBR is the most important physics of the last ~30 earth years. The wiki page on the acceleration is decent. Hope this wasn't to much of a tangent but it's hard, for me, to talk about the discovery of the acceleration without getting into a discussion about inflation.
I think this is the soliton in the quantum scalar field.
Non-topological_soliton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-topologic...n#Soliton-stars
I'm now reading "WMAP" stuff. I didn't know about this before. Thank you for the hint.
My initial thoughts are that "WMAP" is mostly about the microwave background, and the resulting measurements, with extensions of such.
Based on that, I don't see why this study explains the "universe is getting bigger, faster" thing.
You obviously know this research. In simple terms, how does it explain universal acceleration?
What idea am I missing here?
This is an article from Adam Riess and Michael Turner
The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....ows-then-speeds
Essentially, the cause of the 'accelerating expansion' is the same thing that caused inflation at the beginning of our universe. Much weaker thankfully. Alan Guth applied the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, a cosmological solution to the Einstein Field Equations, to quantum field theory. IE to a 'soliton' in a quantum scalar field. Then set the cosmological constant component [pressure term of the metric] to dominate making gravity repulsive. I'll let him tell you about it. You've already read about some of the theoretical predictions for inflation and the results of the WMAP analysis of the CMBR anisotropy. The results of WMAP provide empirical evidence for Guth's model. Inflation brought cosmology to a testable science.
Alan Guth on Eternal Inflation Theory
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/index-frame.html
Eternal inflation and its implications, Alan Guth
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
This is pretty cool. Maybe look at it first. Guth has a conversation with a room full of string theorists. Good power point on Eternal Inflation.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/
The prediction for Eternal Inflation is mind boggling but a consequence of the theory. This next one is really mind boggling. A way to possibly test the Eternal part.
First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995
Lots of stuff. IMO inflation and the empirical analysis of the CMBR is the most important physics of the last ~30 earth years. The wiki page on the acceleration is decent. Hope this wasn't to much of a tangent but it's hard, for me, to talk about the discovery of the acceleration without getting into a discussion about inflation.
I think this is the soliton in the quantum scalar field.
Non-topological_soliton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-topologic...n#Soliton-stars
I have my own theory on this. It kind of follows the multiverse line of thinking.
I've mentioned it before and had those arguments. So I'll just leave it @ that.
I've mentioned it before and had those arguments. So I'll just leave it @ that.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 24 2012, 06:06 PM)
I have my own theory on this. It kind of follows the multiverse line of thinking.
I've mentioned it before and had those arguments. So I'll just leave it @ that.
Can your theory make a testable prediction describing some natural phenomena? If not it's your hypothesis. GR is a theory. QM is a theory. Inflation is a theory. Everybody has a hypothesis about something. Only a few have been able to develop their hypothesis into a self consistent testable theory describing natural phenomena found in our universe. You should read the stuff I linked because you might find it very interesting. The discussion Guth had with the string theorists is interesting. He's proposing that Eternal Inflation could possibly contribute to solving the string vacua problem by populating each string vacua with an inflating universe. That was 2003 and he discusses it in the 2007 paper I linked. Finding the right string vacuum, for our universe is 'the elephant in the room' problem. Scientists always want to derive everything from the theory. In this case there's those who insist on this and there's another group who feel scientists could exercise the Anthropic principle and include only vacua [possible universe] which result in our universe. Right now it's 'stuck in Lodi with the blues again'.
I've mentioned it before and had those arguments. So I'll just leave it @ that.
Can your theory make a testable prediction describing some natural phenomena? If not it's your hypothesis. GR is a theory. QM is a theory. Inflation is a theory. Everybody has a hypothesis about something. Only a few have been able to develop their hypothesis into a self consistent testable theory describing natural phenomena found in our universe. You should read the stuff I linked because you might find it very interesting. The discussion Guth had with the string theorists is interesting. He's proposing that Eternal Inflation could possibly contribute to solving the string vacua problem by populating each string vacua with an inflating universe. That was 2003 and he discusses it in the 2007 paper I linked. Finding the right string vacuum, for our universe is 'the elephant in the room' problem. Scientists always want to derive everything from the theory. In this case there's those who insist on this and there's another group who feel scientists could exercise the Anthropic principle and include only vacua [possible universe] which result in our universe. Right now it's 'stuck in Lodi with the blues again'.
You're right to call it a theory would probably be overstating it a bit.
It's a hypothesis.
However, I would expect to see something like this. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995v3.pdf
I need to read the others.
Good stuff.
It's a hypothesis.
However, I would expect to see something like this. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995v3.pdf
I need to read the others.
Good stuff.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 24 2012, 07:49 PM)
You're right to call it a theory would probably be overstating it a bit.
It's a hypothesis.
However, I would expect to see something like this. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995v3.pdf
I need to read the others.
Good stuff.
That kind of stuff is mind boggling. Never thought I would read of an experiment to test for stuff outside our universe. They're candidates and we might get a clear result after results of the Planck experiment are in.
It's a hypothesis.
However, I would expect to see something like this. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995v3.pdf
I need to read the others.
Good stuff.
That kind of stuff is mind boggling. Never thought I would read of an experiment to test for stuff outside our universe. They're candidates and we might get a clear result after results of the Planck experiment are in.
QUOTE (brucep+May 24 2012, 07:01 AM)
This is an article from Adam Riess and Michael Turner
The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....ows-then-speeds
Essentially, the cause of the 'accelerating expansion' is the same thing that caused inflation at the beginning of our universe. Much weaker thankfully. Alan Guth applied the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, a cosmological solution to the Einstein Field Equations, to quantum field theory. IE to a 'soliton' in a quantum scalar field. Then set the cosmological constant component [pressure term of the metric] to dominate making gravity repulsive. I'll let him tell you about it. You've already read about some of the theoretical predictions for inflation and the results of the WMAP analysis of the CMBR anisotropy. The results of WMAP provide empirical evidence for Guth's model. Inflation brought cosmology to a testable science.
Alan Guth on Eternal Inflation Theory
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/index-frame.html
Eternal inflation and its implications, Alan Guth
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
This is pretty cool. Maybe look at it first. Guth has a conversation with a room full of string theorists. Good power point on Eternal Inflation.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/
The prediction for Eternal Inflation is mind boggling but a consequence of the theory. This next one is really mind boggling. A way to possibly test the Eternal part.
First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995
Lots of stuff. IMO inflation and the empirical analysis of the CMBR is the most important physics of the last ~30 earth years. The wiki page on the acceleration is decent. Hope this wasn't to much of a tangent but it's hard, for me, to talk about the discovery of the acceleration without getting into a discussion about inflation.
I think this is the soliton in the quantum scalar field.
Non-topological_soliton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-topologic...n#Soliton-stars
That's a lot of stuff to read.
But you seem well-versed in this area.
I'll read it. Hopefully, I'll comprehend half of it.
Does it anwer the "universal accceleration" thing?
The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....ows-then-speeds
Essentially, the cause of the 'accelerating expansion' is the same thing that caused inflation at the beginning of our universe. Much weaker thankfully. Alan Guth applied the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, a cosmological solution to the Einstein Field Equations, to quantum field theory. IE to a 'soliton' in a quantum scalar field. Then set the cosmological constant component [pressure term of the metric] to dominate making gravity repulsive. I'll let him tell you about it. You've already read about some of the theoretical predictions for inflation and the results of the WMAP analysis of the CMBR anisotropy. The results of WMAP provide empirical evidence for Guth's model. Inflation brought cosmology to a testable science.
Alan Guth on Eternal Inflation Theory
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/index-frame.html
Eternal inflation and its implications, Alan Guth
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
This is pretty cool. Maybe look at it first. Guth has a conversation with a room full of string theorists. Good power point on Eternal Inflation.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/
The prediction for Eternal Inflation is mind boggling but a consequence of the theory. This next one is really mind boggling. A way to possibly test the Eternal part.
First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995
Lots of stuff. IMO inflation and the empirical analysis of the CMBR is the most important physics of the last ~30 earth years. The wiki page on the acceleration is decent. Hope this wasn't to much of a tangent but it's hard, for me, to talk about the discovery of the acceleration without getting into a discussion about inflation.
I think this is the soliton in the quantum scalar field.
Non-topological_soliton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-topologic...n#Soliton-stars
That's a lot of stuff to read.
But you seem well-versed in this area.
I'll read it. Hopefully, I'll comprehend half of it.
Does it anwer the "universal accceleration" thing?
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 24 2012, 11:49 AM)
You're right to call it a theory would probably be overstating it a bit.
It's a hypothesis.
However, I would expect to see something like this. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995v3.pdf
I need to read the others.
Good stuff.
so what's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis ?
It's a hypothesis.
However, I would expect to see something like this. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995v3.pdf
I need to read the others.
Good stuff.
so what's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis ?
QUOTE (krash661+May 25 2012, 04:38 PM)
so what's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis ?
A hypothesis is a guess.
A theory is a precise, reliable and parsimonious description of an entire class of phenomena.
A hypothesis is a guess.
A theory is a precise, reliable and parsimonious description of an entire class of phenomena.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 26 2012, 01:46 AM)
A hypothesis is a guess.
A theory is a precise, reliable and parsimonious description of an entire class of phenomena.
An hypothesis is an unproved or untested asumpton. The term "theory" has man definitions. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
A theory is a precise, reliable and parsimonious description of an entire class of phenomena.
An hypothesis is an unproved or untested asumpton. The term "theory" has man definitions. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
QUOTE (pmb+May 31 2012, 11:12 PM)
An hypothesis is an unproved or untested asumpton. The term "theory" has man definitions. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Is that really you? We're trying to get the cranks to quit calling nonsense 'theory'. We want a rigorous scientific definition. Hope you're doing good.
Is that really you? We're trying to get the cranks to quit calling nonsense 'theory'. We want a rigorous scientific definition. Hope you're doing good.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 1 2012, 04:40 AM)
Is that really you? We're trying to get the cranks to quit calling nonsense 'theory'. We want a rigorous scientific definition. Hope you're doing good.
Yep. That's really me.
This sounds acccurate for what you're looking for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Something short and sweet can be found in Classical Charged Partilces by Fritz Rohrlich. The first chapter is Philosophy and Logic of Physical Theory page 1
A physical theory, in the narrow sense of the word, is a logical structure based on assumptions and definitions which permit one to predit the outcome of a maximum number of different experimentds on the basis of a minimum number of postulates. One usually deires the postulates (or axioms) to be as self-evident as possible; ne demands simplicit, beauty, and even elegance.
Rohrlich is a well-kown and highly respected physicist.
I bought several texts which I have on my back burner to read about the philosophy of science. The one I'm most anxious to read is The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. This is a must have for those interested inthephilosophy of science. Its the text where the idea of falsifiability was created. That will have a complete definition of science. But it will take a chapter or two to milk it out ot the text completely and its a ery hard text to follow.
Rohrlich is a well-kown and highly respected physicist.
I bought several texts which I have on my back burner to read about the philosophy of science. The one I'm most anxious to read is The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. This is a must have for those interested inthephilosophy of science. Its the text where the idea of falsifiability was created. That will have a complete definition of science. But it will take a chapter or two to milk it out ot the text completely and its a ery hard text to follow.
Hope you're doing good.
Yep. Finally! But it appears I'll be disabled for life, unfortunately.
Best wishes,
Pete
Yep. That's really me.
This sounds acccurate for what you're looking for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Something short and sweet can be found in Classical Charged Partilces by Fritz Rohrlich. The first chapter is Philosophy and Logic of Physical Theory page 1
QUOTE
A physical theory, in the narrow sense of the word, is a logical structure based on assumptions and definitions which permit one to predit the outcome of a maximum number of different experimentds on the basis of a minimum number of postulates. One usually deires the postulates (or axioms) to be as self-evident as possible; ne demands simplicit, beauty, and even elegance.
Rohrlich is a well-kown and highly respected physicist.
I bought several texts which I have on my back burner to read about the philosophy of science. The one I'm most anxious to read is The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. This is a must have for those interested inthephilosophy of science. Its the text where the idea of falsifiability was created. That will have a complete definition of science. But it will take a chapter or two to milk it out ot the text completely and its a ery hard text to follow.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
A physical theory, in the narrow sense of the word, is a logical structure based on assumptions and definitions which permit one to predit the outcome of a maximum number of different experimentds on the basis of a minimum number of postulates. One usually deires the postulates (or axioms) to be as self-evident as possible; ne demands simplicit, beauty, and even elegance. |
Rohrlich is a well-kown and highly respected physicist.
I bought several texts which I have on my back burner to read about the philosophy of science. The one I'm most anxious to read is The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. This is a must have for those interested inthephilosophy of science. Its the text where the idea of falsifiability was created. That will have a complete definition of science. But it will take a chapter or two to milk it out ot the text completely and its a ery hard text to follow.
Hope you're doing good.
Yep. Finally! But it appears I'll be disabled for life, unfortunately.
Best wishes,
Pete
QUOTE (pmb+Jun 1 2012, 07:24 AM)
Yep. That's really me.
This sounds acccurate for what you're looking for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Something short and sweet can be found in Classical Charged Partilces by Fritz Rohrlich. The first chapter is Philosophy and Logic of Physical Theory page 1
Rohrlich is a well-kown and highly respected physicist.
I bought several texts which I have on my back burner to read about the philosophy of science. The one I'm most anxious to read is The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. This is a must have for those interested inthephilosophy of science. Its the text where the idea of falsifiability was created. That will have a complete definition of science. But it will take a chapter or two to milk it out ot the text completely and its a ery hard text to follow.
Yep. Finally! But it appears I'll be disabled for life, unfortunately.
Best wishes,
Pete
The 'yep finally' sounds good. Real good. You're retired and have all the time you need to work on your projects. Does sound good.
This sounds acccurate for what you're looking for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Something short and sweet can be found in Classical Charged Partilces by Fritz Rohrlich. The first chapter is Philosophy and Logic of Physical Theory page 1
Rohrlich is a well-kown and highly respected physicist.
I bought several texts which I have on my back burner to read about the philosophy of science. The one I'm most anxious to read is The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. This is a must have for those interested inthephilosophy of science. Its the text where the idea of falsifiability was created. That will have a complete definition of science. But it will take a chapter or two to milk it out ot the text completely and its a ery hard text to follow.
Yep. Finally! But it appears I'll be disabled for life, unfortunately.
Best wishes,
Pete
The 'yep finally' sounds good. Real good. You're retired and have all the time you need to work on your projects. Does sound good.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 1 2012, 07:43 AM)
The 'yep finally' sounds good. Real good. You're retired and have all the time you need to work on your projects. Does sound good.
Yep. I have good opportunities. I'm going to try to sit through Guth's EM course this fall. He already told me I could. The question is wehther I can take the travel on a regular basis. I wa told that I'm high risk for diabetes and I needed to exercise so this will help on that respect. I'm mnoving to Boston in the next few years so I can be closer to my friends and MIT. Great Library and I can sit in on classes.
We (Alan and several head honchos in physics) had a great luncheon last Friday with several well known physicists. Very intimidating croud. But that's ow I make friends. I don't let fame intimidate me. One of them knew I was looking for a new GR text (since I always am) and he found one he thought was good so be printed it out for me and gave it to me before lunch. Very cool. It's an SR/GR text by Hans Stephania (2004) that you can get online. Want a copy?
Yep. I have good opportunities. I'm going to try to sit through Guth's EM course this fall. He already told me I could. The question is wehther I can take the travel on a regular basis. I wa told that I'm high risk for diabetes and I needed to exercise so this will help on that respect. I'm mnoving to Boston in the next few years so I can be closer to my friends and MIT. Great Library and I can sit in on classes.
We (Alan and several head honchos in physics) had a great luncheon last Friday with several well known physicists. Very intimidating croud. But that's ow I make friends. I don't let fame intimidate me. One of them knew I was looking for a new GR text (since I always am) and he found one he thought was good so be printed it out for me and gave it to me before lunch. Very cool. It's an SR/GR text by Hans Stephania (2004) that you can get online. Want a copy?
QUOTE (rpenner+May 25 2012, 05:46 PM)
A hypothesis is a guess.
A theory is a precise, reliable and parsimonious description of an entire class of phenomena.
ok, i now fully understand, thanks rpenner
A theory is a precise, reliable and parsimonious description of an entire class of phenomena.
ok, i now fully understand, thanks rpenner
QUOTE (pmb+May 31 2012, 03:12 PM)
An hypothesis is an unproved or untested asumpton. The term "theory" has man definitions. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
IMO, this is saying the same thing to what rpenner said, just in difference words.
IMO, this is saying the same thing to what rpenner said, just in difference words.
QUOTE (krash661+Jun 3 2012, 05:07 PM)
IMO, this is saying the same thing to what rpenner said, just in difference words.
Sorry. When I sit down to type at the computer I try to hurry through because I have a damaged spinal column and sitting too long causes severe pain. So I didn't read the entire thread in detail. When there is a thread with many responses it becomes unwise to attemt to read them all. I simply don't have the physical ability to read an entire thread like that. The really isn't a reason for it either. Telling the form that it sounds like another response doesn't really help the OP or others who are trying to learn about the subject.
Sorry. When I sit down to type at the computer I try to hurry through because I have a damaged spinal column and sitting too long causes severe pain. So I didn't read the entire thread in detail. When there is a thread with many responses it becomes unwise to attemt to read them all. I simply don't have the physical ability to read an entire thread like that. The really isn't a reason for it either. Telling the form that it sounds like another response doesn't really help the OP or others who are trying to learn about the subject.
Never have I ever imagined anyone would actually come up with a disability excuse for the lack of forum posting reading comprehension. Figures it would be an "its just a theory" typical Christian stuck on frame dependent mass and ict like dead concepts.
QUOTE (pmb+Jun 3 2012, 09:25 AM)
Sorry. When I sit down to type at the computer I try to hurry through because I have a damaged spinal column and sitting too long causes severe pain. So I didn't read the entire thread in detail. When there is a thread with many responses it becomes unwise to attemt to read them all. I simply don't have the physical ability to read an entire thread like that. The really isn't a reason for it either. Telling the form that it sounds like another response doesn't really help the OP or others who are trying to learn about the subject.
I get you, no problem at all.
I get you, no problem at all.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.