mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-08-19, 18:05   #1
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default davar55's cosmo-autohagiography: Worth its weight in Dunning-Kruggerands

As has been rightly pointed out, two (at least?) other threads have been hijacked by discussion of davar55's monograph.

So, here's a thread for that discussion.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-19, 18:07   #2
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

1E0C16 Posts
Default

I'll start by posting my reply to two of davar55's posts in the "a theism" thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
Ok.

The Hubble Red Shift data supports another interpretation,
namely the existence and nature of the skin.
See the monograph, section INTERPOLATION.
I asked for (a shred of) scientific evidence, not just some speculation or evidence-less claim.

That there is "another interpretation" is your claim, not scientific evidence of any part of your theory.

Anyone can make a claim; providing evidence to support that claim is another matter. I can (quite easily) claim that I can bench-press 4000 pounds.

Again I wonder whether you even understand the concept of evidence and how evidence differs from speculation or hypothesis or argument or claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
OK, fine. WHich of my arguments do you wish supporting factual data for?
Since I know of no factual data that supports any of your arguments, my request would be satisfied by your provision of factual data that supports any of your arguments. Pick one, and supply supporting factual data for it.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-19, 21:07   #3
blahpy
 
blahpy's Avatar
 
Jun 2013

1538 Posts
Default

I read the original thread the other day and burst out laughing. davar55 is obviously a troll (although rather a persistent troll at that). He isn't going to provide you any evidence of his claims other than that "it's true".

Last fiddled with by blahpy on 2013-08-19 at 21:07
blahpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-20, 09:03   #4
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

5·7·112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
...
That there is "another interpretation" is your claim, not scientific evidence of any part of your theory.
...
Since I know of no factual data that supports any of your arguments, my request would be satisfied by your provision of factual data that supports any of your arguments. Pick one, and supply supporting factual data for it.
It's your challenge, you pick one.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-20, 23:18   #5
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

32778 Posts
Default

Davar: Your method looks eerily similar to the whole "You prove that my new claim is wrong" crap, versus "I prove that my new claim is right."

You're basically stalling. He is letting you pick whichever argument you want. This should make it very easy for you. Why are you wasting time?
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-21, 17:46   #6
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
It's your challenge,
Your monograph is a challenge to mainstream physics. So, by your standard that the challenger must choose, pick one of the arguments in it, and provide factual data to support that argument.

(Refusal to make that choice and provide that data will indicate that you're trolling.)

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2013-08-21 at 17:49
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-21, 17:58   #7
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Since davar has refused the common courtesy of asking me whether I've read the cosmo3 version of his monograph, and since his "Intellectual Dishonesty" thread shows no honesty on his part, my future responses to items in that thread will also be posted here.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-22, 22:54   #8
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

10000100010112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
Davar: Your method looks eerily similar to the whole "You prove that my new claim is wrong" crap, versus "I prove that my new claim is right."
You're basically stalling. He is letting you pick whichever argument you want. This should make it very easy for you. Why are you wasting time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
Your monograph is a challenge to mainstream physics. So, by your standard that the challenger must choose, pick one of the arguments in it, and provide factual data to support that argument.
(Refusal to make that choice and provide that data will indicate that you're trolling.)
I was away from home, so I'll now try to satisfy your objections.

"Choose an argument and provide evidence/data to support it."

I can only do this by providing a context

What is cosmology? is the first question to be asked, and I
provide my answer to that in the monograph's INTRODUCTION
section. Just so we agree about what we're discussing.

Code:
INTRODUCTION


Cosmology is that branch of science that deals with and answers fundamental 
questions about the nature of the Universe -- its origins, its destiny, its shape, 
its size, its dimensions, the relationships of space and time, matter and energy. 
Cosmology examines the Universe as a whole.  It draws ideas from special
sciences such as astronomy, physics, and chemistry, and provides an integrated, 
fundamental understanding.  This monograph presents an overview of a new, 
(hopefully) consistent, integrated, scientific view of cosmology.  As scientific 
knowledge is always progressing, this paper, like the universe,  should be considered 
a work in progress.

This new view of Cosmology is based largely on simple descriptive concepts, with the 
more difficult mathematics left to Physics and Chemistry.  While it acknowledges and
incorporates much of classical and modern physics, it challenges some important 
concepts and introduces some new ideas that can be checked in the real world.  It is 
intended to be a "falsifiable" theory capable of being tested and confirmed.

A possible name for the cosmology presented in this monograph is: the Finite,
Steady-State Super-Hyper-Spherical Universe, or the Big Ball Theory.

Let's begin with some fundamental preliminary framework questions that cosmology 
must consider:  How did the Universe begin?  Is the Universe finite or infinite?  
What is the shape of the Universe?  Is the Universe expanding or contracting?  
Is the Universe steady-state or pulsating?  How will the Universe end?  These 
questions will be given answers later within this monograph.

This monograph presents and suggests an alternative view to the current 
predominant cosmological theories, namely the Big Bang Theory and Creationism.  
The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is widely accepted as the most comprehensive scientific 
explanation of the origins of the Universe.  Nevertheless, support of the BBT 
ignores its inconsistencies and fundamental incompleteness.  Although the BBT 
has a great scientific standing, it suffers from some of the same flaws as 
Creationism, which has no valid scientific support.

The BBT fails to respect the dictum "nothing comes from nothing" because it 
cannot explain the origin of its initial conditions or what preceded them.  
Further, the initial conditions of the BBT are derived from modern observations 
and can never be corroborated, in that we can't go back in time to observe them.
Also, what the BBT says about the present Universe or its future -- the so-called 
expansion or accelerating expansion of Space -- is an unnecessary hypothesis 
that can be alternatively explained.

The strongest evidence used to support the BBT, namely the Hubble Red Shift 
and the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation, are otherwise explainable 
within a suitable alternative scientific cosmological framework, such as the one
which this monograph endeavors to provide.
This only sets a context and introduces the later more specific arguments.
But you're free to pick it apart if you think necessary.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-22, 23:22   #9
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

2·1,877 Posts
Default

Analyzing the stomach, I may postulate that at some time the stomach may have been smaller. I may also postulate that at some time digestion may have been different or not even occur at all. Having some ideas but difficulty establishing how the stomach got there does not mean that the stomach must have always been there there.
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-23, 00:02   #10
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

5·7·112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by only_human View Post
Analyzing the stomach, I may postulate that at some time the stomach may have been smaller. I may also postulate that at some time digestion may have been different or not even occur at all. Having some ideas but difficulty establishing how the stomach got there does not mean that the stomach must have always been there there.
The Universe contains all that is. It is not comparable to
any one of its parts. Any such part may have had a beginning,
but not the Universe as a whole (the argument for this comes
later in the monograph).
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-23, 00:06   #11
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

1003910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
The Universe contains all that is. It is not comparable to any one of its parts.
Have you considered that modern theory includes the possibility of multiple universes?
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Explaining gnfs to davar55 in words of one sound davar55 Factoring 18 2015-07-20 12:48
Dunning-Krugerrands for Jesus jasong Soap Box 70 2013-12-22 04:45
Operation Dunning-Kruger-Krieg Raman Operation Kibibit 2 2012-07-25 14:44
Does it worth it? victor Lounge 30 2009-05-30 21:53
Worth thrice their weight in disc space fivemack Hardware 0 2007-05-01 08:48

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:14.


Sun Nov 28 18:14:11 UTC 2021 up 128 days, 12:43, 0 users, load averages: 0.94, 1.11, 1.21

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.